Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
78 results for '* industry:"Consumer Products"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2020-08-26
Practice Area: Corporate Entities
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: William M. Lafferty, David J. Teklits and Lauren N. Bennett, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bruce A. Ericson and Colin T. Kemp, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Gregory V. Varallo, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, DE; David Wales and Thomas G. James, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Francis A. Bottini, Jr. , Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, CA for defendant.
Case Number: D69098
A stockholder was not entitled to request books and records pursuant to another state's laws, because the internal affairs doctrine provided that Delaware law governed inspection rights for companies incorporated in that state.
Publication Date: 2020-08-12
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Consumer Products
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Susan E. Morrison, Kelly Allenspach Del Dotto, Casey Kraning, and John S. Goetz, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Pilar G. Kraman and Robert M. Vrana, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas J. Nash and John D. Cook, Barclay Damon, LLP, Syracuse, NY; Philip A. Rovner and Jonathan A. Choa, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; James H. Shalek and Baldassare Vinti, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69079
Court rejected parties' proposed claim construction where there was no evidence of inventor's disavowal of plaintiff's proposed construction, but where plaintiff's proposal provided no clarity to the claim, the court relied upon the textbook definition for plaintiff's proposed construction term as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Publication Date: 2020-08-05
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Seitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Kimberly A. Evans, Kelly L. Tucker, and Vivek Upadhya, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellants.
for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju, Brock E. Czeschin, Robert L. Burns, Sarah A. Clark, and Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael J. McConnell, Ashley F. Heintz,, and Robert A. Watts, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA for appellee.
Case Number: D69055
Court could use unaffected stock price as fair value where court found other valuation methods unreliable, found issues with sale process, and found capture of synergies in merger.
Publication Date: 2020-07-22
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Seitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael J. Barry, Kimberly A. Evans, Kelly L. Tucker, and Vivek Upadhya, Grant &Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE for appellants.
for defendant: Srinivas M. Raju, Brock E. Czeschin, Robert L. Burns, Sarah A. Clark, and Matthew W. Murphy, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael J. McConnell, Ashley F. Heintz,, and Robert A. Watts, Jones Day, Atlanta, GA for appellee.
Case Number: D69055
Court could use unaffected stock price as fair value where court found other valuation methods unreliable, found issues with sale process, and found capture of synergies in merger.
Publication Date: 2020-05-13
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Consumer Products | Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Brian D. Long and Gina M. Serra, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Melinda A. Nicholson and Ni-colas Kravitz of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, New Orleans, LA for lead plaintiffs.
for defendant: R. Judson Scaggs, Jr., Susan W. Waesco and Riley T. Svikhart, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Susan S. Muck, Catherine D. Kevane, and Marie C. Bafus, Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, California for director defendants and nominal defendant GoPro, Inc.
Case Number: D68979
Plaintiffs in this stockholder derivative matter failed to demonstrate demand futility. The court found that demand was not excused, so it granted defendants' motion to dismiss.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Janet K. Colaneri, Bret Weatherford
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2020-05-06
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Consumer Products | Recruitment and Staffing
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Sontchi
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael B. Schaedle, Victoria Guilfoyle, and Brian J. Hall, Blank Rome LLP, Wilmington, DE; Mark S. Indelicato and Jeffrey Zawadzki, Hahn & Hessen LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jennifer O. Johnson, Careers USA, Inc. General Counsel, Boca Raton, FL; Timothy J. Weiler, Wilmington, DE for defendants.
Case Number: D68968
Summary judgment on avoidance actions denied to the extent there remained factual disputes as to whether the transfers qualified as preferential or constructively fraudulent, in particularly whether certain transfers were made on account of an antecedent debt.
Publication Date: 2020-04-15
Practice Area: Corporate Governance
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Slights
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Blake A. Bennett, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Brian J. Robbins, Stephen J. Oddo and Steven R. Wedeking, Rob-bins Arroyo LLP, San Diego, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Bradley R. Aronstam and Roger S. Stronach, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph S. Allerhand, Stephen A. Radin and Thomas G. James, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for individual defendants and nominal corporate defendant.
Case Number: D68947
In this derivative action, plaintiff failed to demonstrate demand futility, so the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Publication Date: 2020-04-08
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David W. Marston, Jr. and Amy M. Dudash, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael J. Lyons and Ehsun Forghany, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Sharon R. Smith and Brett A. Lovejoy, Ph.D., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiff.
for defendant: Stamatios Stamoulis, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE; Stephen M. Lobbin and Austin J. Richardson, SML Avvocati P.C., San Diego, CA for defendants.
Case Number: D68935
Judgment as a matter of law or new trial on infringement claims denied where plaintiff presented expert testimony and real-world evidence showing that consumers were confused by defendant's allegedly infringing products.
Publication Date: 2020-01-01
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian Farnan and Michael Farnan , Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey Bragalone, Jonathan Rastegar and T. William Ken-nedy, Bragalone Conroy P.C., Dallas, TX for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld and Jennifer Ying, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Cory Davis, Theresa Weisenberger, Daniel Goettle and Jennifer Kurcz, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Atlanta, GA, Philadelphia, PA and Chicago, IL for defendant.
Case Number: D68827
Plaintiff failed to provide fair notice of how defendant's accused products directly infringed on plaintiff's patents, and because the court concluded plaintiff did not adequately allege direct infringement, it could not recover for induced infringement either.
Publication Date: 2019-12-18
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Consumer Products | E-Commerce | Retail
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Arthur G. Connolly, III and Ryan P. Newell, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas L. Holt and Jeremy L. Buxbaum, Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiff.
for defendant: Dennis J. Butler and John D. Simmons, Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy T. Wang, Ni Wang & Massand, PLLC, Dallas, TX for defendant.
Case Number: D68811
Defendant's mark created a likelihood of confusion with respect to plaintiff's federally registered trademark.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read